Partly allowed¶34

M.Jayaraman v. The Secretary

Madras HC18 Feb 2025WP/24634/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 24634 of 2018, High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided 18-02-2025 by Justice R.N. Manjula (connected W.M.P.Nos. 28668 & 28669 of 2018). Keywords: TANGEDCO disciplinary proceedings; Assessor Grade II; negligence, irregularity, insubordination charges; Inquiry Officer report; stoppage of increment six months without cumulative effect; appellate authority; cryptic order; non-speaking order; speaking order; remand for reconsideration; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; M.Jayaraman v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO officials.

What did the court decide?

Order of the second respondent dated 04.12.2017 set aside; second respondent directed to reconsider the petitioner's appeal and pass a speaking order on merits afresh within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. No costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M.Jayaraman Vs The Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the disciplinary authority failed to consider the shortfalls in the Inquiry Officer's report and the petitioner's explanation before imposing the punishment. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Even though considering the petitioner's submission lay within the powers of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority could have appreciated the petitioner's submission before accepting the Inquiry report.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Even if the disciplinary authority is taken to have rightly accepted the inquiry report and proceeded to impose punishment, the appellate authority could have (and ought to have) considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal.

¶29

Key takeaways

The order passed by the second respondent appellate authority dated 04.12.2017 is cryptic and without any discussion on the merits of the submissions made by the petitioner.ratio¶32
On this limited aspect, the matter is remitted to the second respondent to reconsider the petitioner's appeal and pass a speaking order on merits afresh.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R.N. Manjula J., 18-02-2025), WP No. 24634 of 2018: An Assessor Grade II of TANGEDCO challenged, under Article 226, the appellate proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 04.12.2017 confirming the 3rd respondent's disciplinary proceedings dated 23.08.2017 by which he was punished with stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect after charges of negligence, irregularity and insubordination were proved. Held: even if the disciplinary authority could accept the inquiry report, the appellate authority ought to have considered the grounds raised in the appeal; the appellate order dated 04.12.2017 is cryptic and without any discussion of the merits of the petitioner's submissions. Writ petition partly allowed: the appellate order is set aside and the matter remitted to the second respondent to reconsider the appeal and pass a speaking order on merits afresh within four weeks. No costs; connected W.M.P.Nos. 28668 & 28669 of 2018 closed.

¶1

WP No. 24634 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-02-2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

WP No. 24634 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.28668 & 28669 of 2018

¶7

M.Jayaraman Assessor Grade II, Nagar-II, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002

¶11

2.The Superintendent Engineer, Thiruvarur Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Thiruvarur District

¶12

3.The Executive Engineer, Execution and Maintenance, Nagar - II, TANGEDCO, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District

¶13

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Execution and Maintenance, Nagar - II, TANGEDCO, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

WP No. 24634 of 2018

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Vide Ku.A.No.54/ Ni.Pil/ Ni.me/ Ni.u.i./

¶18

Ko.O.Na.Appeal 2017 dated 04.12.2017 in pursuant to confirming the 3rd respondent proceedings in Ku.A.No.se.po/ e.pa/ Mannai/ NiMa/ Nivi.I/ Ko.thani/ A.No. 2017 dated 23.08.2017 and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): M/s.G.Murugendran

¶20

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Purushothaman Standing Counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ petition has been filed challenging the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent Vide Ku.A.No.54/ Ni.Pil/ Ni.me/ Ni.u.i./ Ko.O.Na.Appeal 2017 dated 04.12.2017, in pursuant to confirming the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Ku.A.No.se.po/ e.pa/ Mannai/ NiMa/ Nivi.I/ Ko.thani/ A.No. 2017 dated 23.08.2017.

¶23

The petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in pursuant to the charges issued against him on the allegation that he was negligent in his duties and that he was irregular and insubordinate. On enquiry the charges against the petitioner were proved and he was given with the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also got dismissed by

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

WP No. 24634 of 2018

¶26

confirming the order of the disciplinary authority.

¶27

Mr.G.Murugendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the disciplinary authority has not considered the shortfalls in the report of the Inquiry Officer and did not appreciate the petitioner's explanation.

¶28

Mr.K.Purushothaman, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted that the irregularities were due to the work overburden and he had rectified the defects immediately and no loss was caused to the department.

¶29

The petitioner submitted in his explanation that he had gone for some alternate duty with the Revenue Official and hence he could not make entries immediately and his failure to make entries in the relevant point of time was not intentional. Even though it is within the powers of the Inquiry Officer to consider the submission made by the petitioner in the light of the charges made against him, the disciplinary authority could have appreciated the same before accepting the Inquiry report. Even if it is taken to be right that the third respondent disciplinary authority had accepted the inquiry report by proceeding to impose punishment on the petitioner, the appellate authority could have considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal preferred by him.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP No. 24634 of 2018

¶32

The order passed by second respondent appellate authority dated 04.12.2017 appears to be cryptic and without any discussion on the merits of the submissions made by the petitioner. Only on this limited aspect, I feel it is

¶33

appropriate to remit the matter to the second respondent to reconsider the appeal raised by the petitioner and pass speaking order on merits afresh.

¶34

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the second respondent in Ku.A.No.54/ Ni.Pil/ Ni.me/ Ni.u.i./ Ko.O.Na.Appeal 2017 dated 04.12.2017, is set aside and the second respondent is directed to to reconsider the appeal raised by the petitioner and pass speaking order on merits afresh, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

18-02-2025

¶36

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No bkn

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

WP No. 24634 of 2018

¶39

To:

¶40

1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002